A different, and reasoned, perspective on talking about choice in abortion.
Brownfemipower:
As with other “choice” debates (abortion is the biggie), “choice” rests its foundation on the beliefs that 1. the person making the choice is valued by society and 2. the choice the made is valued by society. In the abortion debates, people like Dorthy Roberts (and lots of other RWOC theorists) argue that “choice” is harmful to women of color (and other marginalized women) because it continues the agenda against women of color such that women of color are systematically violated for making the “wrong” choice. For example, the choice to have a baby is certainly available to all women in the U.S., but it is generally only poor white women, disabled women and women of color that must contend with back to work programs, sterilization without consent, losing children through child protective services, imprisonment, etc. Also, many times, under the guise of “feminist choice’ white feminists employ violent and harmful policies of reproductive control over women of color–for example, the unquestioned support of Planned Parenthood (a corporation with a proven track record of systematic “population control” policies.)
More commentary on Pandagon:
When we have punitive laws aimed at poor women, the rhetoric of choice rings hollow. When we have a history of pushing sterilization, Norplant, and Depo on mainly poor women of color (and damn the ensuing health problems), the rhetoric of choice rings hollow. When we hail lower birthrates among the poor as what will save the poor, and ignore things like economic justice, the rhetoric of choice rings hollow. When we insist on punishing addicted women for not magically kicking the habit while pregnant and simultaneously turn them away when they seek help (since, you know, we have better things to fund with our tax dollars, like the Iraq war), the rhetoric of choice rings hollow. When we threaten to take away the children of poor women (many of whom are women of color) because of circumstances beyond their control, the rhetoric of choice rings hollow. When welfare-to-work policies are coupled with expensive daycare and the demonization of poor mothers as “welfare queens,” the rhetoric of choice rings hollow.
If this picture is accurate—that reproductive rights campaigns centered around "choice" disproportionately affect women of color—then I can see how some people would make the argument that abortion is a form of genocide. More accurately, it could be seen as one of a wide array of devices amounting to genocide. More nicely than that, I think, it should be seen as a factor keeping women of color oppressed. But seeing it as genocide on the grounds that it's genocide against fetuses is ridiculous and offensive, as others have said already. That's like saying that routine blood tests are genocide against blood cells. Why not? They're alive. (Well, some of them. I have my doubts about platelets.)
Acknowledging the reality behind this racial inequality in "choice" campaigns does not mean, I feel, that we should abandon the struggle for reproductive rights. I think it means we need to focus on real reproductive freedom—the freedom to have a child, the freedom to not have a child, the freedom to be treated as a full person with full rights whether pregnant or not pregnant or planning to be pregnant one day or sterile—for all women, and especially women of color who continue to be oppressed by racism as well as sexism. |
